1950

[ValleyGal]

LOL.... no time to watch the whole video, but.... "Carol, who is now Mrs. Bill Johnson..." Wow.... yeah, don't call her Carol anymore because she is no longer Carol. She is now Mrs. Bill Johnson.

 

[ValleyGal]

I realize workplace conditions are nowhere near that in this day and age (at least in western societies) but it was like that not that far in our past. The societal opinions formed by that take a long time to disappear.

A nice demonstration of how social norms shape what we do in marriage. But if a woman wanted to go to work there, she should have had the choice rather than having men make those choices for her.

 

[mkgal1]

Well - in defense of that opinion, I do not think a woman (especially a pregnant woman) was designed for early industrial revolution factory work where the taskmasters would beat their employees with whips and workplace deaths were commonplace due to extremly unsafe conditions. Men WERE and ARE built to take that kind of abuse.

If someone has to go thru that I would MUCH rather it be me than my wife.

I realize workplace conditions are nowhere near that in this day and age (at least in western societies) but it was like that not that far in our past. The societal opinions formed by that take a long time to disappear.

This was a response about "God's design". I realize that God is omnipotent (and knew how mankind would become corrupt)....but speaking about His design and man's corruption seems to confuse the issue (for me, anyway).

I don't really buy into the idea that "men were and are built for abuse". Thankfully our governments recognize that now (UN torture laws come to mind). We're fearfully and wonderfully made---but I don't believe that includes "being made to take on abuse". I sure wouldn't expect that my sons (if I had any) should be able to "just take it--you're built for that". Abuse affects everyone negatively---no matter the gender.

***Just a bit of a side comment. I don't wish to derail the thread.

 

[mkgal1]

Also.....I wonder why it's never the 40's that are glamorized (after the war)? If you look on YouTube---there's a video called, "Battle of the Bulges--1940's Style"....take note of the footwear. That seems like a pretty glamorous era

 

[mkgal1]

Hmmm. It seems that after the war, in the US, there was this sort of re-establishing a sense of standards. I just read this:

A More Religious Nation?

President Eisenhower was not a religious man; he officially joined the Presbyterian Church only in 1953, because he thought some form of piety was appropriate for a president. But during the Fifties, religion made a big resurgence in America. In 1950, 49% of Americans were church members; by 1960, the figure had jumped to 69%.

In keeping with the split personality of the decade, there were really two separate religious revivals. The first was the type of public religion typified by Eisenhower's stance. This was a reaction to the "godless" Communism of America's enemies. The president said, "Our government makes no sense unless it is founded on a deeply felt religious faith—and I don't care what it is." Eisenhower was worried about citizens "deadened in mind and soul by a materialistic philosophy of life."37 In 1954, he signed a bill to add "one nation under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance. Two years later, Congress made "In God We Trust" the national motto of the United States.

Related to this generic, public religion was the success of Norman Vincent Peale. He was an author and preacher who merged religion and the growing self-help movement. In 1952, Peale published The Power of Positive Thinking, one of the most successful inspirational books of all time. In it, he argued that a combination of faith and self-confidence could allow anyone to surmount any obstacle.

A different kind of religious impulse motivated evangelical Christians, typified by the Reverend Billy Graham. Graham founded his Evangelistic Association in 1950 in a small office with a single secretary. Eight years later, he employed 200 people, had a weekly television show, and was taking in $2 million a year.~Society in The 1950s

 

[sdmsanjose]

ValleyGal, I can see why you have a negative about the cultural norms in marriage of the 1950s and 1960s. That negative is understandable because of your statement of
“My mom did not matter - along with most of the women in my community and church.”
If that was the dominant cultural teachings, that women do not matter, of the 1950s and 1960s then I am sure glad that we have got past that time because that sucks! I did not see that in my parents but that does not mean it did not exist.

By ValleyGal
I fully agree that we should take the positive from each generation and keep it, pass it on to the next generation. Unfortunately, we would need to choose who gets to decide what the "positive" is.

I would say that who gets to choose the positives are the marriage partners. For example in our marriage we choose for me to be the main bread winner and that my wife would do most of the child rearing. My wife did not want to work outside the home but she did to help with finances. She took a job (school teacher aid) that would have her home before 4 PM and so that she could have summers off and several days from the holidays like Christmas and Thanksgiving. She did the housework and I did the lawns, auto repairs, home repairs, took care of most of the financial situations, and battled most of the problems in the family and outside the family. That seems to be a set up that comes from the 1950s and 1960s. We never had any trouble with our roles as I just described. I just would not feel right by me being the homemaker and not being the main breadwinner. Nothing wrong with that but for me I would only do that if I had no other choice. A product of the 1950s? Maybe ,but we both like it that way and it worked for us.

When we had major financial decisions to make we would both discuss it and my wife would almost always say that she is leaving the final decision up to me. That was the way it was in her parents household but not so much mine. However, my wife did make a few big decisions. The first was that she retired as soon as she was eligible even though I wanted her to continue until she was 62 (Social Security check) but she retired at 55. Another decision was that I wanted her to work part time with me but she decided not to so I hired another person. I had talked to my wife about us buying a new home when we got the one we have paid off. I had always dreamed of buying a new home that we could have built just like we wanted and not a tract home like we had. My wife decided that she would not do that because she had raised our children in this home and that she did not want to get obligated financially because that would mean that she could not retire early. My wife also decided that she wanted to go back to college in her 30s and she did and got a degree.

I do not know if what I just described about decisions is a 1950s or a later decade marriage situation or a combination of many decades of marriage cultural norms. My point is that I would suggest that the marriage couple gets to decide which positive cultural norms that they incorporate into their lives.


Valleygal, I am sorry that your father and his church felt that your mom did not matter. I wonder how much of that thinking was 1950s culture and how much was those people’s personal decision? I am not too fond of some of the culture of the late 1960s. However, one that I think was needed to a degree was that we in the late 1960s broke away from following some of the cultural standards in society. We dressed the way we wanted to, listen to the music that we liked, and did not believe everything the government and authorities said to name a few.. That is one reason that they called us the rebellious generation. Some of those free thinking choices were good and some were bad.

Today we have more rights and freedom than any time in American history and I am glad that we do not have to follow any cultural standards in our marriage as long as it is not against the law. In the past women had a bad deal but today I do not see much of that. Today we have progressed in some areas.

 

[Autumnleaf]

This woman decided to live like a '50's housewife for a week. It's an interesting experiment. The results?




Makes me wonder.... how many men really want to go back to that kind of time? What would it really do to your marriage, your self-esteem, your sense of unity, your social value? Would you women want to do this kind of experiment in your own home? What would even the experiment do to your home/marriage?

I think if I were to try this, my husband would faint....

She was out of shape to do what she did for the time she pretended. It would be like being a marathon runner for a week. You don't just hop out of the cubicle in your track shoes and hit the pavement for 26 miles. If you are born into it you condition yourself to live that way.

In the 50s we had just won the biggest war in history and our economy was booming because we were the last industrialized nation standing, the others were bombed out from the war. Rosie the riveter had gone home from her war job as was having babies. She was probably much happier with her husband home from the war and doing laundry was probably easier than riveting bombers for 12 hour shifts.

Try using a bit of context when looking at such things.

 

[Dave-W]

I don't really buy into the idea that "men were and are built for abuse". Thankfully our governments recognize that now (UN torture laws come to mind). We're fearfully and wonderfully made---but I don't believe that includes "being made to take on abuse". I sure wouldn't expect that my sons (if I had any) should be able to "just take it--you're built for that". Abuse affects everyone negatively---no matter the gender.

IMO this way of thinking is a product of the opionions of the modern age. It does not reflect historic reality.

 

[ValleyGal]

She was out of shape to do what she did for the time she pretended. It would be like being a marathon runner for a week. You don't just hop out of the cubicle in your track shoes and hit the pavement for 26 miles. If you are born into it you condition yourself to live that way.

In the 50s we had just won the biggest war in history and our economy was booming because we were the last industrialized nation standing, the others were bombed out from the war. Rosie the riveter had gone home from her war job as was having babies. She was probably much happier with her husband home from the war and doing laundry was probably easier than riveting bombers for 12 hour shifts.

Try using a bit of context when looking at such things.

Who cares if she was out of shape? That's not the issue.

I fully understand the context. The war had ended in the 40's. Yes, they were happier having their families back together and all that.... it all shaped that culture. Seriously, though, look at IDay's video. The only program that college was selling to women is "home economics" where they could get a degree to be a housewife (or sell or teach things to other housewives).

Now on to the real thrust of the article - disconnection. If you like context, here you go: a woman from 2015 culture gathers as much information as she can about the 50s and then attempts to live that way for a week (implementing a different culture than the one in which she was raised and now lives).

The women in the 50s may very well have felt connected to their husbands by doing all things "home" but to place that as a cultural expectation on women today is plain foolish. I'm sure 60 years from now, women will be looking at this generation thinking that WE must feel disconnected from our spouse because we both go to work all day and are raising more latchkey kids than ever before. Yet we manage to connect on many levels after work and on weekends. Even for those working opposite shifts, chances are they find ways to connect.

(Stan)Today we have more rights and freedom than any time in American history and I am glad that we do not have to follow any cultural standards in our marriage as long as it is not against the law. In the past women had a bad deal but today I do not see much of that. Today we have progressed in some areas.

I think counter-cultural is the new culture....although it is not really counter-cultural. I guess there is a social conception that individualism is counter-cultural. Anyway, we are very much shaped by our culture. Even the language we speak and how we speak it forms our cultural context. For us, back in the 50's there were things like introducing a woman as "Mrs. Bill Johnson" rather than Carol. The language itself implies that Carol needed to give up her identity and take on her husband's name and identity. We still work that way...most women will change their name for the husband. Do you ever see it the other way around? At best, both maintain their birth names...and birth names are typically passed through the man's side of the family. This is a cultural construct, not an expectation that God has put on us. Women have started going counter-cultural by not taking her husband's name. When will the cultural expectation become that women will pass their name along to their children (rather than husband)? And being truly counter-cultural would be when men start taking their wives' name after marriage. See how much our language can shape cultural norms and expectations?

I, for one, am glad that women are not expected to take on their husband's name anymore. I don't want to me "Mrs. (Husband)" - giving my husband more power, meaning and identity than I have in my own right as a human being. I simply want to be ValleyGal who is married to IDay. This language gives value to both people individually.

 

[mkgal1]

IMO this way of thinking is a product of the opionions of the modern age. It does not reflect historic reality.

I guess it depends on what you're defining as "modern". Is King David "modern age"? Because he wrote this Psalm (42:10):

As with a deadly wound in my bones, my adversaries taunt me, while they say to me all the day long, “Where is your God?”

 

[Dave-W]

King David was also the one who "killed his tens of thousands." That was one of the reasons Saul wanted to kill him.

 

[mkgal1]

I just started a new thread for that discussion: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=67373148#post67373148

 

[mkgal1]

She was out of shape to do what she did for the time she pretended. It would be like being a marathon runner for a week. You don't just hop out of the cubicle in your track shoes and hit the pavement for 26 miles. If you are born into it you condition yourself to live that way.

Who cares if she was out of shape? That's not the issue.

I could be wrong, but I think by "out of shape" he meant that she had a lot of "conditioning" to do and this wasn't a "fair" experiment as she jumped right into this lifestyle. You know.....something like she had to undo what those feminists had done to her first.

That's wouldn't change the outcome, I don't believe. What you're bringing up---the disconnect and isolation each spouse felt.

 

[sdmsanjose]

By ValleyGal
When will the cultural expectation become that women will pass their name along to their children (rather than husband)?

In my dad’s culture they already do that. The child’s name goes like this:
First name, then father’s last name, then mother’s last name. My father is Hispanic.

By ValleyGal
I, for one, am glad that women are not expected to take on their husband's name anymore. I don't want to me "Mrs. (Husband)" - giving my husband more power, meaning and identity than I have in my own right as a human being. I simply want to be ValleyGal who is married to IDay. This language gives value to both people individually

.

ValleyGal, I think that your way “I simply want to be ValleyGal who is married to IDay” is just fine no problem at all! That works for you and IDay!

However, you may be a bit sensitive about the way the 1950s-1960s people address or refer to the married woman. My wife sometimes refers to herself as Mrs. (Stan’s last name) and so do some other women use that method. She sometimes refers to herself by her first name only and has signed her name with her first name, her father’s last name, then my last name. My wife and many other women in our circle of friends do not feel our way gives more power, meaning, and identity to us husbands than she has in her own rights as a human being.


Your statement of

I, for one, am glad that women are not expected to take on their husband's name anymore. I don't want to me "Mrs. (Husband)" - giving my husband more power, meaning and identity than I have in my own right as a human being.

seems to imply that or way (“Mrs. Husband’s last name) is us men taking more power, meaning, and identity away from our wives. That would make us men abusers. Maybe there are some men that have that motive but most that I know, from the 1950s and 1960s, use the “Mrs. Husband’s last name” and I am not aware of many if any woman of our era that thinks that method diminishes their power, meaning, and identity. However, I am sure you can find some as there is almost always the exceptions to the rule.


There is no doubt that culture plays a role in a society but how we interpret those cultural norms makes a difference. In the case of the women taking the last name of the husband, if that diminishes the wife then change how the wife is addressed. In America we can change your name to anything we want.


The bottom line for me is that you and your husband are doing just fine with your method and we are doing fine with ours without diminishing the wife. There is room for both ways!

ValleyGal, I am sure you have good reason to feel the way that you do because you are a good thinker. However, most of the couples that I know do not use the “Mrs. Husband’s last name” as a way to make our wives feel less powerful, meaningful, and have less of an identity.

 

[ValleyGal]

Hey, Stan. I don't have much time, but just wanted to address the name thing. I don't mind being "Mrs. Husband's LAST name." It is when people referred to wives like this: "Mrs. Husband's FIRST and LAST name" that I would (in today's culture) find offensive.

FTR, I like the way your culture does names, including both mom's and dad's last names.

 

[sdmsanjose]

By ValleyGal
Hey, Stan. I don't have much time, but just wanted to address the name thing. I don't mind being "Mrs. Husband's LAST name." It is when people referred to wives like this: "Mrs. Husband's FIRST and LAST name" that I would (in today's culture) find offensive.

Yeah, that does not make much sense and I can see how that would be offensive. If someone is referring to my wife I would expect them to call her Mrs. (last name) of Mrs. (her FIRST name, last name) of just her first name. I had not given that much thought until you brought it up but a wife is an individual not a clone of the husband.

FTR, I like the way your culture does names, including both mom's and dad's last names.

Yes even my German mother agrees with that; I think it is much better that way.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

This is why modern day feminism has skewed what women think of marriage. They see any move by a man as a powerplay. Like all men are simply out to control their wives. That aside I almost never hear anyone say "Mr. John Smiths wife!" anymore. I introduce my wife as her first name (unless she introduces herself of course).

 

[Dave-W]

I don't mind being "Mrs. Husband's LAST name." It is when people referred to wives like this: "Mrs. Husband's FIRST and LAST name" that I would (in today's culture) find offensive.

As I understand it, calling a woman Mrs [Husband's FIRST and LAST name] means that the husband is dead.

 

[jannikitty]

As I understand it, calling a woman Mrs [Husband's FIRST and LAST name] means that the husband is dead.

What?? It's simply how some(very few) address a married woman. My husband (53 years married) is still very much alive!! Sometimes I am referred to as "(his first name)'s wife" or Mrs. (his full name) and sometimes "Mrs. (married name) " but usually by my first name or Ms.

Today's culture is just less formal than in years past. Some titles still work; others seldom used. I like it when a clerk takes my check and calls me "Mrs." even though I had a flourishing career as was known as "Professor (my last name)" for some time before retiring. But I accept the informality and usually just go by my name or nick name. " A rose by any other name..smells the same.." said well by the bard. (Shakespeare)..

 

[Dave-W]

What?? It's simply how some(very few) address a married woman. My husband (53 years married) is still very much alive!! Sometimes I am referred to as "(his first name)'s wife" or Mrs. (his full name) and sometimes "Mrs. (married name) " but usually by my first name or Ms.

From Widow?

Mrs. John Doe is the traditional form for a widow. Just because her husband has died, a widow continues to Mrs. (Husband's Name) ... if she chooses to.
For example my mother continued to use Mrs. Thomas Hickey after my father died. She had Margaret Hickey on her checks, but never Mrs. Margaret Hickey.